Retrieve a full task board snapshot with columns, tasks, and stats to monitor progress or render the board. Use compact mode to return only task IDs and titles for large boards.
读取看板完整快照：栏目定义、每列下的任务、统计（总数/已完成/百分比）。想看当前进展、或要渲染看板时用它。compact=true 时只返回任务 id 与标题，任务很多时可显著减小返回体积。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compact | No | 只返回 id/title/column_id，默认 false |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload composition plus the key volume trade-off (compact=true returns only id/title to shrink responses when there are many tasks). It does not mention permissions or pagination, but for a read-only snapshot tool the behavioral disclosure is solid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then when to use it, then the compact caveat. No filler; every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does: column definitions, tasks per column, and aggregate statistics. Combined with the compact behavior note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value beyond the schema by explaining the rationale for compact (significantly smaller payload when tasks are numerous). Minor mismatch: the description says compact returns '任务 id 与标题' while the schema also mentions column_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource (读取看板完整快照) and enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains: 栏目定义、每列下的任务、统计。This aggregate scope distinguishes it from the granular siblings list_tasks, list_columns and get_task, which return narrower slices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives explicit trigger conditions ('想看当前进展、或要渲染看板时用它'), which is clear context for selection. It does not, however, name an alternative (e.g. list_tasks) for the case where a full snapshot is unnecessary, so the routing is one-sided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.